Company and Case Information

Home

Index of Filings

News and Press Releases

Filings

Decisions

Settlements

Litigation Activity Indices

Top Ten List

Annual/Quarterly Updates

Clearinghouse Research

Articles & Papers

Search

Related Sites

About Us

Local Rules

Sponsors


Register


_______________
Copyright (c) 2001
Stanford Law School


Panera Bread Company
Summary: According to a press release dated January 25, 2008, the complaint charges Panera Bread and certain of its officers and directors with violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Panera Bread engages in the ownership and franchising of bakery-cafes in the United States under the Panera Bread„µ and Saint Louis Bread Co.„µ names.

According to the complaint, throughout the Class Period, the Company highlighted its increasing system-wide sales and, as a result, continuously increased its earnings guidance. Moreover, the Company was rapidly opening new locations throughout the United States. Unbeknownst to shareholders, the Company’s aggressive growth strategy was causing the Company to experience declining sales at its existing stores.

Additionally, the complaint alleges that, throughout the Class Period, defendants issued materially false and misleading statements and failed to disclose (i) that the Company was experiencing negative trends in its business which were causing it to experience rising expenses and slow growth; (ii) that the Company’s store expansion strategy was causing the Company to yield a lower return on capital and experience a decline in sales per restaurant as the Company’s new store openings began to cannibalize sales from existing stores; and (iii) as a result of the foregoing, defendants lacked a reasonable basis for their positive statements about the Company, its prospects and revenue growth rate.

Then, on July, 26, 2006, Panera Bread announced its financial results for the second quarter of 2006, the period ended June 27, 2006. In response to this announcement, the price of Panera Bread common stock fell $7.34 per share, or approximately 12%, to close at $51.93 per share, on extremely heavy trading volume.

INDUSTRY CLASSIFICATION:
SIC Code: 5812
Sector: Services
Industry: Restaurants


COMPANY/ISSUER NAME: Panera Bread Company
COMPANY/ISSUER TICKER: PNRA
COMPANY WEBSITE: http://www.panera.com

FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT IN THE DATABASE
Western Washington Laborers Employers Pension Trust, et al. v. Panera Bread Company, et al.
 COURT: E.D. Missouri  DOCKET NUMBER: 08-CV-00120
 JUDGE NAME: 
 DATE FILED: 01/25/2008  SOURCE: Notice of Filing
 CLASS PERIOD START: 11/01/2005  CLASS PERIOD END: 07/26/2006
 TYPE OF COMPLAINT: Unamended/Unconsolidated
 PLAINTIFF FIRMS IN THIS OR SIMILAR CASE:
  • Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP (Melville)
      58 South Service Road, Suite 200, Melville, NY, 11747
       (voice) 631.367.7100, (fax) 631.367.1173, info@csgrr.com/
  • Dysart Taylor Lay Cotter & McMonigle, PC
      4420 Madison Ave, Kansas City, MO, 64111
       (voice) (816) 931-2700, (fax) ,
  • Schiffrin Barroway Topaz & Kessler, LLP
       280 King of Prussia Road, Radnor, PA, 19087
       (voice) 610.667.7706, (fax) 610.667.7056, info@sbtklaw.com
    _____________________________________________
     TOTAL NUMBER OF PLAINTIFF FIRMS:  3

  •  DOCUMENTS FOR THE FIRST IDENTIFIED COMPLAINT
    Class Action Complaint for Violations of Federal Securities Laws - Demand for Jury Trial
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 01/25/2008

     OTHER DOCUMENTS
    Class Action Complaint - Jury Trial Demanded
    Case Name and/or Number: Sue Trachet, et al. v. Panera Bread Company, et al.
    Type: Complaint Date on the document: 02/26/2008

    WARNING AND DISCLAIMER OF LIABILITY:
    The information included on this Web site, whether provided by personnel employed by Stanford Law School or by third parties, is provided for research and teaching purposes only. Neither Stanford University, Stanford Law School, nor any of their employees, agents, contractors, or affiliates warrant the accuracy or completeness of the information or analyses displayed herein, and we caution all readers that inclusion of any information on this site does not constitute an endorsement of the truthfulness or accuracy of that information. In particular, this Web site contains complaints and other documents filed in federal and state courts, which make allegations that may or may not be accurate. No reader should, on the basis of information contained in or referenced by this Web site, assume that any of these allegations are truthful.
    Go to Search  page | Go to Case Index  page | Back to Top